Facts of the Case

In this case the petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, and 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The proceedings stemmed from an FIR filed by his wife, alleging that the petitioner had subjected her to cruelty, harassed her for dowry, and had engaged in non-consensual “unnatural” sexual intercourse with her. The allegations were supported by her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that the FIR was lodged with undue delay and was thus unreliable. He further contended that no offence under Section 377 IPC could be made out since the alleged acts occurred within a marital relationship, claiming that such sexual acts between a husband and wife were exempt from punishment. He also emphasized that the complainant had refused to undergo medical examination, weakening her allegations. Additionally, he stated that independent witnesses did not support the complainant’s version and that there was no specific demand for dowry in her statements, thus challenging the applicability of Sections 498-A IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Contentions of the Respondents

The counsel for the State and the complainant opposed the petition, asserting that a prima facie case had been established. They highlighted that the complainant’s statements detailed not only the alleged non-consensual unnatural sexual acts but also continuous cruelty and harassment. The delay in lodging the FIR, they argued, was explained by the ongoing abuse she had endured. The court was urged to consider the evolving jurisprudence on individual dignity and sexual autonomy within marriage.

Court’s Observations

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal delivered a landmark opinion rejecting the petitioner’s arguments. The court emphasized that a wife’s consent is crucial, even within marriage, particularly in relation to carnal sexual acts other than penile-vaginal intercourse. The judge firmly disagreed with prior rulings of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had excluded such acts from punishment under Section 377 IPC simply because they occurred within a marital context. Justice Deshwal stated: “This Court respectfully disagrees with the reasoning of the Madhya Pradesh High Court… A woman, despite being a wife, also has individual right to particular sexual orientation and dignity.”

The court relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1, which recognized that carnal intercourse such as oral and anal sex may be unnatural for most but constitute a natural orientation for members of the LGBTQIA+ community. The Apex Court clarified that “if any act of carnal intercourse between the individuals is done without the consent of anyone of them, then the same would be punishable under Section 377 IPC.” The Allahabad High Court applied this reasoning to heterosexual marriage, stating that consent remains pivotal.

The court also drew from K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1, underscoring that the right to privacy and bodily autonomy are fundamental to Article 21 of the Constitution. It observed: “Privacy is a concomitant of the right of the individual to exercise control over his or her personality… They exist equally in the individual, irrespective of class or strata, gender or orientation.”

Further, in addressing the dowry-related offences, the court cited Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao & Others, SLP (Criminal) No. 9243 of 2024, affirming that a specific demand for dowry is not a prerequisite under Section 498-A IPC—ongoing cruelty is sufficient. The court found that the wife’s detailed statements provided adequate basis for proceeding with the case.

Court’s Findings

The court concluded that carnal intercourse without consent—such as oral or anal sex—even within marriage, can be prosecuted under Section 377 IPC, though it does not meet the definition of rape under Section 375 IPC. It held that “carnal sex, other than penile-vaginal intercourse is not a natural orientation of sex for the majority of women, therefore the same cannot be done by the husband, even with his wife without her consent.” The fact that the victim was his lawfully wedded wife did not negate her right to refuse consent. Additionally, the court found sufficient allegations of harassment and cruelty in relation to dowry and noted that delay in FIR was justified due to ongoing abuse.

The court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur v. State of M.P. and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh, noting those cases were not applicable due to distinguishable facts and stronger evidence in the present matter.

Court’s Order

After a comprehensive evaluation, the court dismissed the petitioner’s plea to quash the proceedings. It found that prima facie offences under Sections 377 and 498-A IPC, along with the Dowry Prohibition Act, were made out. However, the court allowed the petitioner the liberty to seek bail from the trial court, stating: “No ground for quashing is made out, therefore, the present application is rejected.”

Credits: Adv. Deeksha Rai